Wow. You sound really bitter. Do you really hate artists that have worked extremely hard for 15 years, for no money and no glory, and then finally have some success? Also: Hilton Als is a racist. I can't believe a respectable publication like the New Yorker would print a phrase like "privileged white-boy solipsism." Needless to say, Hilton sees everything through his prism of his imagined victimhood. Consider the reverse. If a writer penned a phrase consisting of "(derogatory adjective) black-boy (derogatory adjective)," the uproar would be heard across the country, people would get fired, and Al Sharpton would have his latest photo-op. Als' statement is the kind of writing that sets race-relations backwards, not forwards.

So... now we can't call out white privilege where we (think) we see it?

You're really reaching for an indictment, Zachary.

You see, I can't even bring the topic up without being pounced on, where as it is fair game for Hilton. Is the term "white-boy" necessary to point out where one thinks they see white privilege?? Can I use the term "black-boy" if I want to point out the hypocrisy of black writers where I think I see it? Ok then. Hilton Als' race-baiting black-boy discrimination can not even be argued against because he is black. It's a free ticket to denigrate white people, even if they are completely undeserving.

I'll say nothing of myself, but the director, Pavol Liska, is an immigrant from a poor farming village in Slovakia. He came to America when he was 18 to work on a farm. He taught himself English. He got into a college in Oklahoma. They recognized his abilities and soon he was transferred to the Ivy Leagues. He then came out and struggled in NYC for 15 years, working as a security guard and janitor, while trying to make theater whenever and however he could. He is one of the hardest-working, disciplined people I've ever met. Is this "privileged white-boy solipsism?" If he were black, Hilton would be singing his praises, for over-coming nearly insurmountable obstacles. I'm sure the review would have read much much differently were that the case. But he's white, so his success must have stemmed from that factor, I suppose. Blatant racism.

I think you're just looking for a reason to discredit Als's critique. Als disses all kinds of directors, white and black, and in this case he's dissing your aesthetic as precious: "reflective only of a certain kind of chic-inflected privileged-white-boy solipsism." Which is not addressing Pavol's background, but this show. Als complimented "Poetics." So he's clearly not against honkies-qua-honkies.

No, this has nothing to do with his critique, asinine as it is. Even if you are dissing an aesthetic as "privileged white boy," it is as insulting as a white writer suggesting that the aesthetic of a play is "ghetto black boy." And if such phraseology was used in an extremely unflattering review, I guarantee there would be an uproar. You don't have to be Ann Coulter to see a double standard here.

Anyway, the fact that the author of this Stranger article revels in the disparagement of our company, when we have done no wrong to him whatsoever, speaks volumes about his mentality and that of this publication. If you don't like something, fine. But don't whine about it and take cheap shots, when all we've ever done is struggle and work hard. What are we suppose to do, apologize for our success?